cjdb added a comment. In D107292#2939521 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2939521>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D107292#2923261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2923261>, @cjdb wrote: > >> Patch 2: expressions >> >> xor {} >> bitand x // warning will suggest std::addressof in C++ land >> and label > > An additional expression to cover, not that I think anyone would be this > awful by accident, is: `foo->compl Foo(); // Pseudo-destructor call` Nice catch! > One question I have about both declarations and expressions are whether we > have an appetite to diagnose overloaded operators or not. Personally, I think > it'd be reasonable to diagnose something like `foo->operator bitand();` or > `operator not_eq(A, B);` as expressions, but not reasonable to diagnose the > declaration of the overloaded operators using alternative tokens. I agree that `bool operator and(T, T);` shouldn't be diagnosed on (and this patch's clang-tidy sibling will one day also diagnose that, but it's way off). I think that `foo->operator bitand()` and `operator not_eq(expr1, expr2)` should only diagnose if `foo->operator&()` and `operator!=(expr1, expr2)` are diagnosed, //and// I think that should be a separate warning (I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing to do yet: let me sleep on that). I might be misunderstanding your intention though. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
